Learning To Live With Mystery

There will be some of you right now, or maybe for some time already, who have been observing and experiencing the odd few 'incidents' related to the subject matter that has been heavily canvassed in here for quite a while.

Now I don't know about the rest of you, but for me the one aspect that leaps out is just how subtle and nuanced and in some senses 'odd,' 'strange' or even 'mysterious' are the hard facts associated with this material.

Stay away from the chocolates, Jocelyn!

I watched and laughed earlier today as someone spoke of Dr Steven Greer as talking about 'them' as just wanting to come down and do 'kumbaya' with all of us...

There is a word or a phrase, really, that I have heard these 'foreigners' use - which is 'to-gethering.' They don't say 'cities,' because that is not the structure of their societies.

Well you can't get together with anyone who really is of an extremely or extraordinarily advanced intellectual nature, and possessed of massively superior technology which they use as fluidly as we might turn on a tap for water - unless you are capable of mingling on some kind of equivalent arrangement.

You're not really being together, otherwise.

But then let's face some other inconvenient facts here though! We do not really get together with other ordinary human beings - it's always on some basis involving transaction. Never mind trying to be kind and saying 'almost always -,' the truth is it is always transactional.

We are nothing but personal units of consciousness contained inside very sophisticated kinds of biological toys.

We are toys.

Sometimes some guy hands me a toy and tells me: 'Okay, here you are. Now what are you going to do with this?'

Human beings are continuously playing with dangerous things that they are not really capable of handling properly.

Hey hey! That is even worse!
(Notice how cold the glass is though).

When it comes to handling our involvements with other people, then it all comes down to the cultivation of the inner life.

I despair - totally despair - at ever explicitly and outright saying certain things, even here. Firstly as ordinary humans, we regard time as strictly linear, and it just plain isn't. 

But it's also totally just not as simple as going down into the Aladdin's Cave and coming out with pockets filled with precious gems and gold - in order that we 'might' then play with toys and not wreck things, or at least be able to pay for the disasters and the clean-ups.

Here's the problem those of you, who, exactly like me, are able to 'engage' and have been doing so for a while already: you know you can go into the Aladdin's Cave. And you know you can get and command the 'toys.' 

You know it's real and that the results are real.

Knowing how to tap into both complex sophisticated forms of energy, as well as super-advanced intellects, is what you are going to take practical things from and substance from and apply those things that you will then certainly possess.

There are some things that 'they' will not explain to you. There are things which seem like mysteries, even despite that you are actually manipulating them for practical effects and for personal benefit.

I think it's time human beings, at least those with the intellect, the brainpower to 'go there,' should stop all this diffidence about whether or not to act and 'do things.' There has been altogether too much of this threatening and dictating what you 'should' or 'should not' do. The key thing ought to be if you are able to do a thing.

Honestly! SMH.
This is why the rich kids need
to hire personal fitness trainers.
SMH.

Someone recently asked, well, in fact a couple of people did: 'How come if they can change us mechanistically very easily, unilaterally, and fix us, surely then we don't need to... ...ourselves. Even if we were growing into the systems and structures obtaining here in human society and thereby covering over who we really are deep inside, surely they can find us anyway?'

Well I know someone, a friend right - who is able to -. 

Yes it's not a 'good thing' they are able to do.

But it is who they really are. No 'covering.' Just them themselves for real.

And if that friend is you? Then what?

If you have been practicing and nothing has happened yet - you are not doing it right. Very subtle though, I'll admit that. But some of you have had an 'incident' take place.

Very uplifting tune this. This is who we are.

The Palace - Polanski Movie

Later this year there will be an exclusive limited release of Roman Polanksi's just completed film 'The Palace,' which is a story set in the Gstaad Palace Hotel about the intertwining lives of the guests and the staff.

The film is set to get an international theatrical release date of early in 2023, maybe one reason for that being the story itself in the movie is set around the events of a particular New Year's celebrations at 'the Palace.'

...There is so much about Polish people after WWII in the West, that it's hard to know where to begin. You could say that the brilliance of criminal-minded war-mongers like Zbigniew Brezinski shaped US arms-racketeering even down to this day, but that would assume there are never any other shadowy figures behind someone like Brezinski, or Kosinski (Jercy Kosinski, CIA propagandist front guy), or Alan Greenspan - or even Scarlett Johansson and Nicholas Cage.

A lot of the drama of this planet comes from shadowy things going on well behind the scenes.

When you look at the internet forums all over the place eventually you will come across the kind of question that goes - 'Why are atheists not convinced about the proofs for the existence of God?' Or this doozy - 'Why are atheists shifting the goalposts to scientific proof for the existence of God, now that God's existence has been proved?'

You see... ...look. There is a problem with people who turned up in the West anywhere, post WWII and found their way into the highest levels of 'achievement' and politics, the military, and government. And it is simply that you cannot really prove the reliability of who they say they 'were' during the War, or where they actually came from.

Anymore than you could 'prove' for instance, that Jesus and any/all of His followers existed, in the first place because their existence was banned on pain of death by the authorities, and then, pretty soon afterwards, the 'authorities' self-destructed anyway! Still though people argue over it who want to argue.

Jocelyn - when you go there,
take some pics, please.
(I hope you are reading this before
you head off there).

Records of Nazis and Jews and 'others' were burned during WWII and the same went for competing social and political interests in Jerusalem and Rome too - more than several times in fact. Amr al-As tried to burn all of the records of the Grand Libraries (or 'Museums') of Alexandria and Baghdad but his underlings did not do a great job, and the dump where the massive fire was lit turned out to be at a place called Oxirynchus, where more or less all of our oldest surviving actual papyri and scrolls relating to the great maths and philosophy and literature and religious writings of the ancient past were found! ...Admittedly half-burned. And some things completely missing to common public view.

The fact is, many many times in history, have there been instances in which rulers sought to blot out existing knowledge, and corrupt the memory of it, including the books or inscriptions, seeking to substitute something different that would benefit the ruling elites in place of the human race at large and its knowledge base.

The reason I wanted to talk about King Charles' 'vow of selfless duty' (to something) was that the thoughtful aware person instantly senses that there is possibly hypocrisy going on. What level of hypocrisy the reasonable person will not quickly rush to judge, but the point is, people sense something not quite right is being said...

People sense things within.

A human looks at someone and says 'Oh he/she is very beautiful.' But will the sensing of a disingenuous attitude and of hypocrisy stand the test of 'truth' about whether that person continues to be seen as 'beautiful' though?

See the common modern atheist wants to take the discussion to whether or not you can evidence a material person, standing in some outrageously 'heavenly' attire, and issuing thunderous pronouncements...

This goes with the music track below...

Whereas the actual definition of the word 'god' is whom someone worships.

Of course you're entitled to worship a hypocrite if you want. I am not going to stop you.

But what I really want to know is why you would even think candor and honesty and absolutely truthfulness must go along with outward physical aesthetic beauty?  

...Or else otherwise there is a sense, a feeling, of something being wrong; or just 'not quite right.'

Where are you getting that sense from? You're not getting it from Evolution - Evolution supports the liar.

In other words, in actuality, the human definition of God, always includes Truth - as in absolute unequivocal Truth. We worship that. That is in fact what we call 'God.'

And yes, there is a component, or a dimension, which goes with it that has to do with some kind of weird technically complicated concept of visual aesthetic appeal as well. But whereas we all know that people argue over who is, say, the most beautiful person at any particular given time or in context of prevailing fashionable ideas about visual aesthetics (and so that cannot be 'God' per se), nobody argues over the mechanistic reality and 'structural integrity' of Truth in its specific meaning.

Those people who blot out Truth, and subsequently vend lies to the public cannot thus worship Truth as God, or as a God.

And naturally these kinds of people do not want you to think that there is a God, just as they will deny you the activity of worshiping something - which you do though; because you worship Truth.

Now.

Although it seems that the God Truth is very shadowy of a figure, hiding behind things like the integrity of monarchs, or the reliability of aesthetic beauty -, on the one hand it is nothing for you as a human to 'worship' some Hollywood screen idol, yet you have never turned your head around to see what is making that person actually 'beautiful' and certainly not, have you turned to see where the absence of hypocrisy in them comes from; if they are that kind of individual, which is pretty rare granted.

See only a hypocrite claims to know what aesthetic beauty is and where it comes from, if we do no beautiful things ourself. Neither you nor I can paint like Dante Gabriel Rossetti, so what arrogance to tell him that we know better than he, where beauty comes from, or how it is 'made.'

Viola Manigk - is the vocalist in the 
track below.

But if you yourself have no hypocrisy in you, you can know of a certainty, that there is an ineluctable connection and a relationship between you, and this shadowy thing that you worship. Well unless you are prepared to say that you don't exist, and that there is no proof and no evidence for your existence, then in fact there absolutely is proof to you of the existence of the thing that you worship.

My question is where did you get your doubt from?

And let me tell you this, if you worship something that proves to be no god, then you can say indeed you have been worshiping a false god, an idol.

Listen, my friend, your problem is going to be when your god, turns up. Not when it lets you down; when did Truth ever let anyone down who saw it?

And your common sense will tell you, after only a short while thinking about it, that 'Truth' is no small thing.

   

Xuannu

Pronounced: 'Shu-ah-ni.'

Means esoteric female (person; an actual person).

People today, even in the mainstream Chinese ethnic culture, forget that they do not know their own actual history and are not allowed to know it - even since the Emperor Shun forbade them from having any relations with the beings of Heaven. They, humans, could read the stars and offer prayers to those, but it was against the proclaimed edicts of the ruler of Middle Kingdom (China) the Emperor Shun, to actually arrange meetings with the real Deities as such, or even any beings from above. And ever after him, all the subsequent rulers agreed to take the same oath that Shun made his court take regarding not involving themselves personally or directly with the beings of the Nine Heavens. (We will discuss later why the Deities do not object too strongly, and have kept the world sectioned off).

Out of the darkness, a creature of the occult...

Thus, today, many people even from authentic Taoism lineages, maintain that 'Xuannu' is merely the idea of the intellectual resources one must consult in order to formulate good practical plans and then execute them.

And this is not correct at all.

Xuannu is a title, or a uniquely-applied personal description, in the first place, not an actual personal name as such. It means 'the esoteric one.'

Nevertheless, in the Navajo people's language she is 'Sho-annaiya:' from the skies.

Her first name in Chinese is 'Jiu-Tian;' pronounced 'Yaw' or 'Ya-Then.' Ya-Then, the esoteric one.

So, one cannot hold much store by the legends recounted of Jiutian Xuannu, which in any case are called 'myths.'

It is unreasonable to think that she really did descend and appear to the warrior Huang-Di, in order to teach him magic and Wisdom and how to conduct warfare - since she is the Goddess of all of these things. We won't go into it here, why this is unreasonable - and will simply leave people to believe anything they wish to believe...

Jiutian's mother is the Grand Ultimate Mother of the West, who owns the Peach Trees of Immortality.

Had Jiutian taught anyone at all, she would have succeeded in imparting her knowledge to that person fully, since she is a Divine Person, and incapable of error, and consequently, would have bestowed upon her disciple, the right of access to the Peaches of Immortality.

'Xuannu' is a descriptive title, similar to Neith in the Egyptian, and it means the kind of Primordial Darkness that is so extreme, that it is 'glossy,' and out of which 'pure creation' (meaning that which emerged from no thing) must really emerge but which really is some composition of potential and of existing resources.

Grand Ultimate Mother of the West.
(Means like the Western Gate of Heaven; not
the West).

That is one reason that the mediocre Taoists say 'Xuannu' is the plane of Universal Resources.

The problem is that this is not ever in the mythology itself, about 'random' exposition or manifesting of resources - but intelligent manifesting of the compositions of certain resources. Ya-Then is the Goddess of Wisdom and intelligence.

Jiutian Xuannu is 'the Esoteric Goddess of Ultimate Intellect and Wisdom...'

You can even clearly see the evident mistakes in the modern exegesis of certain ancient classic texts and words, because many of today's Taoists, confuse the Chinese word 'Gau' with 'Jiu,' claiming that the Goddess is 'the Lady from the Ninth (Gau) Heaven.'

Now why am I talking about this?

'As I wiggle my selfless toes, into the most unaccommodating New Zealand lambskin car mats in my Daimler, I vow selfless duty...'

So to whom or to what is 'King' Charles vowing selfless duty?

Well in his speech he said: the country, the nations, the peoples, and the principles of constitutional government.

Double-baked cheese souffle.
Has nothing to do with anything,
except it's really good!

Now you see he can't really be a king there by saying that - since the right of kingship is bestowed only by God and that's whom the king serves; no one else at all.

And, ever since the Emperor Shun (and all of the other 'Emperor Shuns' - Nimrod, Og of Magog, the last son of Poseidon at Atlantis, King Salva; many others) took control of the Earth, wresting human people away from the peoples of the skies, there are no stable kings with actual access to the heavens. Instead there are rulers with Earthly domain.

On the one hand it would be unnecessarily cruel to suggest that 'Charles' (even that is a mistake) is being hypocritical. He's hardly to blame for having been brought up in the midst of very controlled propaganda designed to make him utterly compliant and subservient to others. He's even said so that he's subservient...

But on the other hand, as far as Heaven would see it, the hypocrisy of the human is utterly shameless. They will say anything, and then justify it in their group mind, by using any kind of elastic pulling of terms and meanings around and especially, by slicing and dicing the benefits and processes so as to make out that something is 'the best of what is possible' afterall.

And nothing could be of course, further from the truth. The Fisher Kings (mythically, as far as you would be told) left their palaces and their wealth to do the actual Will of God.

Some would ask me, no doubt - 'But how come it is so hard to get in contact with these famous/infamous sky people of yours?'

Because you are actively being blocked, my friend, by other interests who simply do not want you to know anything about the people from above.

Blue starling.

'But you say they have ultimate and limitless powers to do anything.'

Uh-huh. And?

It's in your own Western mainstream religious book: 'Behold, lest the human creature stretches forth its hand and takes of the fruit of Eternal Life and eats thereof, and becomes as one of us, living forever.'

The Mysterious Lady of the Ninth Heaven is merely mysterious, and occult, or esoteric; she is not impossible.

My toes are not selfless, far from it.

They are not completely selfish though. And unlike the last Fisher King, I can still wiggle my toes.

Just like with the Fisher Kings, the Mysterious Lady has animals and things sacred to her, one of these being the iridescent blue-feathered kinds of birds such as the kingfisher and the blue starling.

All humans permanently stand at the threshold of success and yet are mostly all defeated. And it is because they (mostly) all - like the knight Sir Percival in the Grail Legend - fail to ask the Fisher King 'the healing question.'

 

Butterflies Are Not Chaotic

Nicole Kidman says she has a butterfly phobia.

You have to respect people's phobias. These are genuinely traumatic responses to something that is usually quite small in reality. Which is not to say they cannot also be totally toxic and deadly!

Butterflies are generally speaking not deadly at all, as far as I'm aware. Some quite rare butterflies and moths are quite poisonous because when they were caterpillars they ingested highly poisonous plants. But that's an unusual case for the world of butterflies and moths.

High up on the sides of mountains, there are butterflies, and some of them exhibit vaguely similar ways of flying around in groups the way that starlings do and are quite famous for.

One obvious difference of course is that the butterflies are much much slower -, quite hypnotically languid, really.

There is a modern movie 'The Butterfly Effect' which has as its background proposition, this modern concept about so-called 'chaos theory,' part of which asserts that there is a sensitive dependence on initial conditions in a non-linear system so that small changes at some earlier point can lead to very large consequences later on.

Funny though, how time and time again, Hollywood movies will outright lay out something very exotic, completely esoteric really, in terms of its actual source in any text anywhere - but every single time they will twist it to deceive the common public about what the esoteric version actually was about.

...I've been turning over how to deal with certain subjects that a few people here have been talking about off-site, and it has to do with the nature of aesthetics as an etiological matter: in other words what really causes humans to decide something is 'nice' or not nice, and whether this is all just how certain mindsets are in fashion at some times and fall completely out of fashion again at other times.

But this is getting down to the most dangerous kinds of 'brass tacks' here. This is not something you can go into openly, by which I mean one simply cannot expose too much functional truth about it because it can be misinterpreted - and this is exactly what Hollywood did with this 'Butterfly Effect' thing and they did it, as far as I'm concerned, knowingly and with mal-intent.

On the one hand, virtually every religious moral teaching always portrays this idea that we must 'be nice to the worst kinds of people...' ...Because somehow this will revert them and avert the evil that they are doing and 'eventually' lead to 'helping them' become not so bad.

On the other hand, I don't believe that, not even for a second.

You wouldn't 'fat shame' here,
would you, Brits?

You see the most logical ultimate point of 'doing good' to bad people, is to give them maximum information, and that will absolutely certainly and without fail and without question lead to your own destruction.

What are you, completely crazy??

Butterflies are not chaotic and the butterfly effect is not a matter of 'chaos theory.'

'Small changes.' Hmn. 

This is again, this simplistic seemingly deterministic but in fact automata paradigm that they want to use.

The reason it's important for you to write something - is because this is a completely manifested reality effect, from out of nothing but what is going on in your head.

Now this does not mean that 'what you write is going to come true;' it means that what you were thinking, came into hard material reality as some words on some paper.

While billions (and it is literally billions) of human beings in religious groups are still arguing over this kind of question - 'does God have actual limbs, is God anthropomorphic' - you will be better served asking, is God beautiful and if so, is this the exact same kind of thing we say that some people are...?

Butterflies are beautiful in some people's mind - Nicole Kidman is beautiful in other people's mind; people are all people. Therefore Nicole Kidman is a butterfly.

Now.

Things will happen out there in the world.

Doesn't make me fat.
I eat heaps of this stuff!

And you can ask me about them later.

For now, what you need to do, is go out into the city streets, and just walk around until you see a homeless person, or in fact any person in a problematic situation. Realize that they can easily have some kind of sudden positive turn of fate, and which hands them the solutions to all of their immediate problems.

Now... ...Well, put it this way: you have enough space in your head to think about the street people, and so too do you have enough to think about someone you consider worthy of your best thoughts. You know, as in, someone that is very attractive to you. You can surely spend a little more than just harbor the lone simple idea that they may experience sudden positive turns of fate.

Aesthetics are not relativistic ideas.

They are manifested by various forces.

And that is all you really need to know right now, isn't it.

Most atheists say 'I want to see your god, prove to me that any such thing materially exists.'

The light shines, the flowers grow. But the flowers are not the sun.

I hope you just worked out how literally malevolent and sinister what so-called 'atheists' of the kind who make that challenge, truly are.

Let's hide away in the dark...

I hope you got the point.

There is a reason why everyone you see in the entertainment world today is ugly and skinny and as if on death's doorstep. ...Or, they are ugly and misshapen and unhealthily overweight.

FBI circa a hundred years from now (won't exist though, so don't worry) would be very concerned because of the non-chaotic butterfly effect.

You just keep 'watching this space.' And when we re-visit butterflies here again the next time that we talk about them, well -, no doubt we'll talk again about it all. And then you will be sitting at the edge of your seat though and paying attention.

 

No 'Blunt Instruments'

I was going to title this something else, but it would have been like a blunt instrument and would have mistreated the subject matter by simply taking it to the level of some kind of metaphorical allusion to Star Trek story arcs.

Basically, we are talking about those episodes written by the Sci Fi writer Theodore Sturgeon to do with the Vulcan T'Pau.

To cut back from there and bring it to what we want to address, all that needs to be said is that for some reason - maybe the Universe was sending info into Sturgeon's head (and many others as well, who were responsible for the show's themes and underlying ideology, you could call it), and consequently the show develops some ideas that actually exist in real human cultures of the ancient past.

'Pure,' but alluring.
And this is according to the story
writers themselves.

Notwithstanding that the roots are in the ancient past, we have been 'eating from the fruits of that ancient tree' though, ourselves, up till today. And I'm not talking about this infamous 'Garden of Eden' tree, although who darn well knows what is all hooked up into things there!

Okay so the fundamental problem with human beings is to do with this word they have: 'love.'

The ancient Greek philosophers understood things better than we do now, today. We are a long way from using a real language with accurate meanings - we have a sinusoidal type of linguistics, where words have completely false meanings often, in fact. This is deliberately done to pull the wool over the eyes of the naive.

This word we use - 'love' - is one part of the 'philo' thing the Greeks had. They are basically still using the same Sanskrit root: 'Lubhyati.'

We also employ many common phrases but never stop to think why we are saying it the way that we do:

'We have love.' But 'God is Love.'

Even in the Christian texts the matter is treated that way too - 'no greater love does someone have...'

But if you examine the whole thing carefully and consciously acknowledging the explicit and implicit intended meanings, then you see that all these ancient writers and thinkers - even Jesus Christ Himself - are demarcating between the human individual's use of 'love' and that there is some kind of 'thing,' as in, an actual 'thing' known as Love which is entirely separate from human beings and that is not simply some phantom that 'comes into existence' because of humans. This is the same fallacy idea, this idea of the action first developing the principle subsequently, that idiots like Richard Dawkins entertain all the time: Pythagoras' Theorem came into existence because of material reality. Not. No it did not though!

When you think 'crushed velvet,'
think T'Pol.

T'Pol the half-Romulan, pseudo-Vulcan humanoid, well she gets into some difficulty because her mind has been 'damaged' from getting addicted to Trellium-D. And this makes her emotions very active, whereas, in the mode of a 'Vulcan' person, she has suppressed them.

Now this is actually close to the ancient Greek idea about 'Lubhyati.'

The word does not actually mean 'he desires' as Wiki claims for people who actually know Sanskrit. It means to go into a frenzy over something you like.

And so, the ancient Greeks correctly wrote that 'Love is a Divine Madness.' The Star Trek Vulcans don't approve of love because it leads to fights and arguments and eventually wars and death and whatever else that is unwanted.

And so their plan is to suppress this 'frenzy;' and as they would say, this 'madness.'

But you cannot actually have love. You do not 'love someone.'

You don't understand how sinister this 'way' that people carry on, really is. It is the reason super advanced beings cannot just come down here and cause the disposition of many problems.

You see, when a human says 'I love so-and-so' what they really mean (without ever admitting it), is that they are intending to obligate that other person on account that they have 'given,' or extended/offered, something of the most important thing that they own, to them. Well that's what they are trying to say.

Art Nouveau in Compton Chapel,
in England. 'The Morning Stars
Sang Together.'

And so, typically, human society fraudulently converts this idea into a fanciful concoction about two people agreeing equivalently, to 'give' some super important internal 'part of themselves.' And so then this forms the legalistic basis of a putative 'spiritual' union and contract - which quickly blends in to the spirit world: real estate, inheritances, money, status, children, civic duties and obligations.

According to the Sanskrit teachings, 'Lubhyati' is a god-thing only. According to the Greek philosophers and to Christian Cosmology, 'Love' is a god, and with the Platonic people and the Christians, Love is the HIGHEST of the Divine Beings; it is actual 'God.'

It is also, as accurately enough portrayed by the Vulcans, a kind of a madness.

Love 'is.' 

And it permanently 'is.' 

A person's ego and self and consciousness can be 'put into a dormancy.' It's like having a light switch on -, and then turning it off.

'I love so-and-so.' No. You 'might' if you are lucky, be able to go into a Spiritual Force which is an actual being. And from which place, you cannot come back out though.

You go into the light of something that 'is.'

And then you get totally burned up and are no more.

Moth to the flame.

Richard Dawkins, one of the stupidest men who ever walked the planet, will tell you, that the reason you find someone's face attractive, is because the quality of attractivity (just like gravity, which they all understand really well, right...) arises from the confluence of multiple configurations (this is called the fallacy of number, where something categorical, lies beyond its enumerator, simply because there are so many numbers to look at, that whilst it must be there, we cannot actually say where this is, well, because, you know - too hard/too many numbers/too much to bother with, really. But it is there, really; trust us. We know. We are 'sci-entists'). 

Looks like something you can eat.

 

It just 'arises out of.' Just like the Right-Angle Triangle thing just arises, out of, well out of thin air of course. Because naturally there is no way it can be a thing, that doesn't actually have any specific material substance itself but somehow exerts total power over everything material.

So someone's face and their body and whatever else is attractive, because 'evolution' and the need to replicate and there are all kinds of amazing causative species reproductive reasons for every single angle. Also, why you find crushed velvet attractive.

LOL

I am not the person, like this 'Saint Stephen' and all of them, who, when being stoned to death by the Dawkins's of the day (adamant that they didn't want to hear a different story than the one they were making money out of) as he was dying voiced that God should forgive them.

I am the person who, not only will bring to the fight the declaration that you cannot blaspheme against the Spiritual Divine Agency and get away with it, but I have friends in high places with nasty attitudes too. Who are just looking for an excuse.

Let the fun and games begin. That's what I say. No point stoning me!